Scribd

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

................................................................................................ iii

INTRODUCTION

...................................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND

....................................................................................................................7

JURISDICTION

................................................................................................................... 10

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE STAY

....................................................................... 11

I. There is a strong likelihood that certiorari will be granted if the Court of Appeals affirms.

........................................................................................................... 12

A.

This Court Has Already Granted Certiorari on a Case Raising the Same Substantive Constitutional Questions Presented by the Underlying Judgment Here.

...................................................................................................... 12

B.

As in

Hollingsworth

, the jurisdictional question presented by the District

Court’s denial of NOM’s motion to intervene in the otherwise non

-adversarial proceeding is itself likely to garner a writ of certiorari from this Court.

........................................................................................................................ 15

II. There is a strong likelihood that the district

court’s

decisions denying

intervention and enjoining Oregon’s marriage laws

will be overturned.

........... 19

A.

Windsor

itself strongly suggests that the States retain the authority to define marriage in a way that recognizes its gender complementarity and procreative purpose.

............................................................................................... 19

B.

Because this Court has recognized that even post-judgment intervention is timely when necessary to protect appellate rights, and because at least

some of NOM’s members have protectable interests in this litigation, this

Court would likely overturn the denial of intervention, particularly when

intervention was necessary to solidify the lower court’s jurisdiction.

........... 31

III. Absent a stay, there is a likelihood of irreparable harm.

.................................. 34

IV. The balance of equities favors a stay.

....................................................................... 37

CONCLUSION

..................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A: Opinion of District Court on Motions for Summary Judgment

...... App. A

Appendix B: District Court Order Granting Summary Judgment

....................... App. B

Appendix C: District Court Judgment

....................................................................... App. C

Appendix D: Ninth Circuit Order Denying Stay

..................................................... App. D

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases

Adams v. Howerton

, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................. 23

Andersen

v.

King County,

138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) ..................................................................................... 29

Arkansas v. Wright

, No. CV-14-427 (Ark. S.Ct. May 16, 2014) ................................................................. 2

Ashwander v. TVA

, 297 U. S. 288 (1936) ................................................................................................. 32

Baker v. Carr

, 369 U. S. 186 (1962) ................................................................................................. 32

Baker

v.

Nelson,

191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) .................................................................................. 22

Baker v. Nelson

, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)...................................................................................... 15, 22, 23

Barnes

v.

£-Systems, Inc. Group Hosp. Med.

&

Surgical Ins. Plan,

501 U.S. 1301 (1991) ................................................................................................ 12

Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder

, 962 F.Supp.2d 1252 (N.D. Okla. 2014) ...................................................................... 2

Bostic v. Rainey

, 970 F.Supp.2d 456 (E.D. Va. 2014)............................................................................ 2

Bourke v. Beshear

, 3:13-CV-750-H, 2014 WL 556729 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2014) ............................................................... 2

Bowen v. Gilliard,

483 U.S. 587 (1987) .................................................................................................. 29

Brennan v. Silvergate Dist. Lodge No. 50, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO

, 503 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1974) ................................................... 10

Bush v. Gore

, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) .............................................................................................. 14, 34

Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman

, 143 U. S. 339 (1892) ................................................................................................. 32

Citizens for Equal Protection

v.

Bruning,

455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................... 5, 14, 23